Debates of Feb. 17th, 1998

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, 200,000 pieces of correspondence were sent out by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I did not sign each and every letter but I certainly did have a good thorough analysis, a solid briefing on exactly what the results were.

I will point to some of the hon. member's comments. The hon. member made specific statements regarding 87% and 92%. Numbers were being thrown out wildly.

I remember not very long ago that the deputy House leader I think it was from the Reform Party stood in this House and what was basically said by the hon. member was that public opinion polling had to be done in a scientific, qualitative way and it had to be accountable and the results exposed.

We have heard a plethora of numbers that have come from members opposite in this Chamber. They cannot explain what those numbers mean. They have not tabled any documents.

I could stand here and say that I saw 101% of all the letters that were received from farmers. The truth is that I only saw 100%.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was at a Weyburn meeting I think it was on January 20. There was a guest book with the signatures of some 600 people and I imagine they were all farmers.

The question was asked how many people would support single desk selling. Out of some 600 people, not one hand went up. When it was asked how many of those farmers wanted dual marketing, 85% to 90% of the hands went up. I am not saying that there was not one or two people or maybe a dozen who would have supported single desk selling. They were a little cautious in putting their hands up, but I thought that was a pretty good poll.

When I went to Alberta, I had the same experience meeting after meeting. There were 75% to 80% of the people who wanted a marketing choice. If that is not pretty good polling, I do not know what else to do.

The people were there physically. They took the opportunity to come out, to give their ideas and to put up their hands. That is what we do here in the House when we stand up. That is pretty good polling I would say.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, hands up for those in this House who feel that the Reform Party does not represent its constituents. I am sure we would get a very high percentage.

Quite frankly we have to use scientific polling. We have a majority in this House. The question that is being asked here is whether this is a reasonable expectation to just have a show of hands on a very single issue. There is more to this issue.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, it being 2 p.m. we still have a few minutes of questions and answers. We will take these right at the end of question period, but right now we will go to Statements by Members.

1998 Winter Olympics

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend one of P.E.I.'s most famous and most loved athletes struck gold in Nagano, Japan.

Dave MacEachern, Eli as he is known to islanders, and his teammate Pierre Lueders from Edmonton entered their names in the history books when they tied for gold with Italy in the two-man bobsled competition. After four runs both teams had the exact accumulated time. Although a tie is rare, it is not the first time.

However, the importance of this medal is not missed by Canadians. This is the first gold in 34 years for Canadian bobsledders and Eli is the first islander ever to win an Olympic gold medal.

Just to show how supportive islanders are to their athletes, last week over 17,000 islanders put their signatures on a 400 page fax sent to Dave in Nagano.

On behalf of all islanders I want to congratulate Eli for his outstanding performance. At the same time I want to wish him and his team mates the best of luck in the four man bobsled scheduled for this coming week. Good show, Dave.

The Senate

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a member in the upper house indicated, upon appointment, that reforming the upper chamber would be a chief priority. This member, Senator Carstairs, a former leader of the Liberal Party of Manitoba, said: “I think the Senate should be an elected institution”. She criticized Mr. Mulroney's appointment of one of his fundraisers in 1993.

We hope Senator Sharon Carstairs will take a principled stand and insist that she will go down in history as the last Manitoba Senator to be appointed, not elected. We hope Senator Carstairs will take a giant step toward reforming the upper chamber, that she will insist that Manitoba elect a Senator for the next vacancy.

The next vacancy will occur May 6, 1998, the date her Tory colleague is scheduled to retire.

Literacy

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Thursday is literacy day and Canada's literacy challenge is enormous.

According to a recent international adult literacy survey, almost half of Canada's adult population is functioning at the two lowest levels of literacy defined by the survey. That is about 10 million people from the age of 16 and up.

What it means is that these people are likely struggling in our knowledge based society. If you cannot read well, how do you help your kids with their homework? If you cannot read and write well, how do you get a good job?

I call on fellow members in the House to take our literacy problem very seriously. Our economy, our kids and our future as a country all hinge on building up our literacy skills.

National Unity

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the midst of this year's ice storm and the devastation there was also great beauty. Canadians demonstrated a unifying sense of community that embraces the expanse of this great country.

In light of the initiatives during the ice storm and the current media focus on national unity it is essential that Canadians and Quebeckers have this context in mind when dealing with the future of our country.

Unity requires the ongoing effort of all Canadians, for my constituents of Kitchener Centre here in Ontario, the people of British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland to reach out to the hearts of Quebeckers, to make a connection on a personal level as we saw during the ice storm aftermath.

The future of this country cannot be seen as a clash of titans, as a tug of war between governments. It should not be depicted as a political issue, as some are trying to do.

This is a people issue. It is an issue of the Canadian people.

Economic Development

[Claude Drouin, Liberal, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the members of this House some excellent news for the Beauce region.

On January 30, the Hon. Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development announced a $360,000 repayable contribution to Metubec Inc. of Saint-Jules de Beauce.

This investment by the Government of Canada will ensure the establishment of the only automated plant specializing in the manufacture of metal handles in Canada. It will use advanced technology developed in Italy.

Our government is proud to be associated with this project through the Gatiq-Technorégion Québec—Chaudière-Appalaches fund, because not only is this an innovative project but it will also result in the creation of approximately 15 jobs in Saint-Jules.

This is another excellent example of the importance we in Canada attach to the economic development of Quebec regions.

Congratulations to the two main developers, Marcel Paré and René Beaupré.

The Senate

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia I have done random testing and most British Columbians can name only one of our six senators, Pat Carney.

It goes without saying that if facing elections five of our six might as well not even file. We are in danger of becoming the only western democracy sleep walking into the 21st century without an elected Senate.

Recently I spent some time with some American senators and congressmen. They were very interested in the workings of the Canadian Parliament and in some of the democratic reforms which the Reform Party promotes.

I had a simple response to their questions about the Canadian Senate. Canadians understand that in the United States if one wants to become a senator one has to win an election, but in Canada one has to lose an election.

When is the government going to fix this dysfunctional setup?

Reference To Supreme Court

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today Quebec artists conveyed to the Supreme Court of Canada the message that the Quebec people will not agree to be bound by a decision made on the basis of the Constitution Act, 1982, an act that was never recognized by the Quebec National Assembly.

Because they believe in democratic values, artists have continued to think and create freely, in spite of the Minister of National Heritage, who wanted to use them as Canadian flag bearers.

It is therefore with pride that I quote Pierre Graveline, who recently wrote: “While our existence and freedom are once again being challenged by the Canadian government, we assert today that Quebeckers are a free people with a legitimate right to self-determination that no court can take away. Our destiny does not belong to anyone but ourselves. It is not up to the Supreme Court but to us and us alone to decide our future”.

National Unity

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia panel on national unity, appointed by Premier Glen Clark and including MPs from the three federal parties now holding seats from B.C., has just reported on its province-wide hearings on the nine provincial premiers' recent Calgary declaration.

The panel has found that British Columbians, by a very large majority, support constitutional recognition of the status of the French civil law, the French language and the French culture within Quebec. British Columbians' constitutional recognition of Quebec as a unique society within our federal system flowed logically and inevitably from that by an equally large majority.

British Columbians have accepted Quebec as a unique society without demanding any constitutional quid pro quo or recognition of any B.C. special historical constitutional claims. They have made a unilateral gesture of goodwill to Quebec in an expression of faith in the future of a plural Canadian society within a plural Canadian federal system.

After 30 years it may be time now to close the constitutional files.

Reference To Supreme Court

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday men and women from all regions of Quebec demonstrated unanimously in front of the supreme court, proclaiming for all to hear their pride and deep sense of belonging to Quebec and reaffirming that only Quebeckers have the right to decide their own future.

On Monday, Quebeckers of all ages reiterated their disagreement with, and declared illegitimate, null and void, any attempt to have a court of law overrule the sovereign will of a people.

Quebec's democrats, sovereigntists and federalists alike, whatever their political affiliation, are calling on people to join forces against this unprecedented attack on Quebec's democratic institutions, and against the use of the supreme court for political and partisan ends.

At this crossroads, it is clear which direction we must take: the people of Quebec will follow the way of democracy pure and simple.

Transitional Job Creation Fund

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Montreal has suffered greatly, from an economic point of view in particular, as a result of the political and economic instability brought about by the propaganda of the separatist government in Quebec.

In order to provide assistance to small and medium size businesses, the federal government has created the transitional job creation fund.

Since September, this fund has created 366 new jobs and provided $1.5 million for many textile manufacturers in my riding of Ahuntsic; to name a few, Tricot Giorgio, Tricot Terrytex and Christina Canada, all of which have used these funds to purchase new high tech equipment and export their Canadian products to new markets.

This is another good example of the importance this government attaches to job creation and to the development of a dynamic economy in Montreal.

Canadian Wheat Board

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a sad day for western Canadian farmers. Today this government is ending debate on changes to the Canadian Wheat Board by invoking closure. Even worse, in spite of ample and verifiable evidence that the government has long used the wheat board as a foreign policy tool at a cost of billions of dollars to Canadian grain producers, wheat board lawyers even went as far as to argue before the courts that the wheat board had no obligation to prairie farmers.

In spite of this, both the minister of agriculture and the wheat board minister last night voted against an amendment proposed to make the primary legal responsibility of the wheat board to act in the best interests of wheat and barley producers.

All other arguments aside, is it not reasonable that the producers of the grain should be able to expect their marketing agent to act primarily in their interest? Truly a sad day for democracy and property rights.

The Economy

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval West, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister issued a vigorous call today at noon before the members of the Canadian Club inviting Canadians to join him in facing the vital economic challenges arising at the dawn of the year 2000. These challenges will involve ensuring sustained economic growth, as we have since 1993, for our children and future generations. This is what vision is about.

Vision, for most Canadians, means taking advantage of the incredible opportunity to live in Canada. The Prime Minister made the commitment today to give young Canadians the opportunity to take part in improving the quality of our life.

Our government finds solutions for the problems facing us. The sovereignists would do well to note this speech expressing common sense and the realities of our country.

National Defence

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this government has downsized the Department of National Defence, hurting both civilian and military employees. Since 1993 the civilian work force has been cut by over 11,000.

The threat now facing DND employees is the government's alternative service delivery which will be used to cut another 3,800 workers; 600 to 800 job losses in the Halifax area alone.

The government argues the ASD process will find workers who can provide support service for the best price. Yet when civilian military workers successfully beat the ASD contract bids of private companies, the government changed the rules in favour of the large corporations. What is the real agenda here, an efficient military or a privatized military?

The devastation of the ASD is evident at CFB Goose Bay in Newfoundland where support services were recently privatized to a foreign corporation which is now slashing jobs and reducing the leftover wages by 20% to 30%. The impacts on the community have been dire, with everyone from DND workers to the local chamber of commerce denouncing the privatization deal.

Monique Vézina

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of separatists switch sides over the years. They call that progressing, except that in certain instances, there is a certain lack of subtlety.

For example, a former minister in the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney and a friend of the current Conservative leader, Monique Vézina, yesterday said she never had been a federalist. So what was she doing in the Conservative government? What was she doing in a party that was promising to bring Quebec back into the constitutional fold with honour, as former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney put it? Was Ms. Vézina a separatist while she was representing the Conservative government as part of her duties abroad?

That is the essence of the separatist coalition, which comprises individuals who will try to obliterate their past to make way for their proposal to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada. If that is democracy, I far prefer commitments by people who speak frankly, coherently, with their past—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

National Unity

[Jean Charest, Progressive Conservative, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the issue of the supreme court reference.

I have opposed this initiative for these reasons. Every national political party and its leader in this House agrees that this matter, the future of Canada, is ultimately a political decision. A court ruling cannot be a substitute for the common will of Canadians to live together and share the same destiny.

We should not kid ourselves on the ultimate effect this strategy will have. The separatists can only rejoice in the fact that this keeps their issue on the top of the national agenda. The discussion now revolves around how the country can be broken up as opposed to how we can make it work better.

At every turn and every moment of my political life, I have fought for my belief in Canada. Canadians deserve leaders able to see beyond the next horizon, to do what is right instead of succumbing to what is easy. I will never give up my fight for Canada.

Justice

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Ontario Court of Appeal on its insight while ruling on the “no means no” rape shield law.

When the new amendments were introduced and became more commonly known as the “no means no” rape shield law, defence lawyers and civil libertarians predicted the new rules would be found unconstitutional.

This provision restricts the ability of defence lawyers to question sexual assault complainants about their previous sexual history, even with that of the accused.

In a major decision the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the rape shield provision does not violate the charter of rights and freedoms.

Regarding the constitutionality of the new provision, the three judge panel decided: “The admission of evidence of the prior sexual activity of a complainant clearly infringes the complainant's privacy interests and these should be protected to the fullest extent possible while maintaining an accused's right to make full answer and defence”.

This decision is a sound and sensible precedent. It makes good law.

The Economy

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the Prime Minister announced that much of the fiscal dividend will go toward his millennium scholarship fund. His fund is full of lofty promises, but it will not replace the $7 billion the Liberals have slashed in payments to the provinces for health and education. It will not help students graduating this year with $30,000 of debt. It will not help the 17% of our young people currently out of work.

Instead of this millennium band-aid, why does the government not reward Canadians with tax relief, the real way to a brighter future for all?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why the Leader of the Opposition would oppose the millennium fund. What better way is there, as the Prime Minister said in this House, to celebrate the millennium than by investing in the education of young Canadians, by investing in the future of young Canadians, by investing in the intellectual capacity of this country so that we can succeed in the modern economy?

[Preston Manning, Reform, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the would-be prime minister would defend the speech of the current Prime Minister when it did not contain a single word about debt reduction or tax relief.

If the Prime Minister wants to help children in Brandon, as he says, why does he load every child with $20,000 worth of debt on the day it is born?

If the Prime Minister wants to help the single mother in Brandon, why does he tax $1,300 out of her pocket every year?

Instead of getting out the chequebook, why does the government not reward Canadians with debt reduction and tax relief?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has on numerous occasions talked about debt reduction and its need. The Prime Minister has spoken about the need for tax reduction.

The difference between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Reform Party is that the Prime Minister is also capable of talking about the kind of vision, the kind of country we want to build. He is capable of talking about investing in Canadians. He is capable of talking about the needs of young people and the needs of seniors.

This country is not a balance sheet. This country is made up of human beings who believe in their country. That is what the Prime Minister has spoken about.